# Rogerian argument

Carl R. Rogers
 Cogito ergo sumLogic and rhetoric Key articles General logic Bad logic v - t - e

A Rogerian argument is a type of argument in which one tries to seek a middle ground between two opposing arguments rather than trying to dictate a "winner" unlike in a traditional Aristotelian argument.[1] This kind of argument is largely inspired by the 20th-century American psychologist Carl Rogers. One may "win" in a Rogerian argument by successfully convincing the opponent to consider alternative arguments.[2]

## Alternative name

• Rogerian rhetoric

## Typical usage in argument

1. Person 1: Raises argument $A_1$
2. Person 2: Raises argument $A_2$
3. Person 1 or 2: Creates argument $A_3$, a 'compromise' of $A_1$ and $A_2$ that typically contains premises from both $A_1$ and $A_2$
4. Person 1 or 2: Argues argument $A_3$ typically using the combined premises of $A_1$ and $A_2$

## As rhetoric versus an argument

Suppose that the Rogerian argument technique is being used on two arguments, $A_1$ and $A_2$, that are disjoint. That is, $A_1 \cap A_2=\emptyset$. Then, it is impossible to have a formal argument using Rogerian argument techniques; there are no common premises. At this point, the purpose of deploying Rogerian rhetoric is more analogous to a negotiation medium than an argument technique whose purpose is to simply understand the opposing argument rather than trying to change it.[3]